Locating a Druid using Natural Spell

[Nail]

The alleged ability of untrained persons to recognize still casting implies that the language of magic is the identifying trait. Therefore, untrained persons would not recognize a wildshaped druid casting a still spell, because the language is different.

This is the fun bit, so I'm dragging this thread up to the top again, in the hopes of getting some more responses.

Bro Mac: Why is the "language of magic" any different for a squirrel than a human? They cast the same spells, don't they? Still arcane or divine magic, right? The magic still requires somatic, verbal, and even material components (depending on the spell, of course), etc.....

I guess what I'm implying (if not out-right saying) is that "the language of magic" is actually a broad spectrum of things, all of which are required to cast spells. These things need not vary much from species to species. In fact, the RAW implies that very conclusion!

 

[Saeviomagy]

From a logical point of view:
Squirrels are different, so squirrel spellcasting must be different.

HOWEVER

It has the same end effect, so it must be somewhat the same.

From a mechanical point of view:
If squirrel spellcasting is really so different, then no mechanic exists to identify it. Therefore squirrel spellcasting is either
a) Undetectable
b) Requires a house rule

From a balance point of view:
Giving a spellcaster undetectable spellcasting is a very, very bad idea.

Saying that someone stand in a crowd of people and not require a hide check to remain unnoticed is a bad idea. And is a house rule.

Making non-humanoid casters immune to counterspelling is a very bad idea. And is a house rule.

Forcing people to make spot checks to notice the bleeding obvious is a very bad idea. And is a house rule.

The total upshot - from a logical point of view, we've got a couple of conflicting points.

Everything else points to the 'squirrels having different casting' requiring house rules, or simply being such a good option that noone would ever not take it.

 

[Nail]

Giving a spellcaster undetectable spellcasting is a very, very bad idea.

Agreed.

And since the RAW doesn't support giving a wildshaped druid using the Natural Spell feat a difficult-to-detect spellcasting method, we've got nothin' t' worry about.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

From a logical point of view:
Squirrels are different, so squirrel spellcasting must be different.

This isn't a logical progression. There's nothing about your premise that requires your conclusion. I could as easily say Males and Females are different, so Female spelling must be different. There's no logic in that.

Now as a concept it may be sensible. It makes sense that if two things are different, they may not do something the same way. But that assumes that squirrels cast spells. They don't. What you've got is a humanoid druid attempting to accomplish humanoid spellcasting, using an animal body. Natural Spell represents the knowledge required to substitute the necessary vocal and somatic components with similar animal sounds/gestures, and get the spell to work. It doesn't represent that the druid has learned "animal spellcasting," because there's no such thing.

I know you aren't arguing for Natural Spell to be undetectable, Saeviomagy. I just wanted to respond to the "well it is logical" comment, and dovetail that into my second point.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Bro Mac: Why is the "language of magic" any different for a squirrel than a human? They cast the same spells, don't they? Still arcane or divine magic, right? The magic still requires somatic, verbal, and even material components (depending on the spell, of course), etc.....

Where I'm coming from is that a verbal language necessarily entails a certain combination of sounds. Because a snake cannot make the same sounds as a human, and yet a druid only capable of making "natural" snake sounds can still cast spells, I assume that spellcasting as done in snake form sounds different than spellcasting in human form. Because the sounds are so vastly different, the language is different. In which logical step do you think I am mistaken? Is it that "language entails a certain combination of sounds"?

Now, in regard to Saeviomagy's point about how hard it is to come up with something that is logically consistent but not game-breaking, I would submit that you do in fact need a house rule. You need some reasonable explanation for how non-spellcasters recognize spellcasting. I've agreed all along that making druid casters undetectable is bad for balance. I don't agree that sacrificing internal logic and thematic flavor (making untrained non-spellcasters be able to tell casting from gibberish) is a good solution. If the rules as written suggest that you should do so, I look forward to the next FAQ addressing this point. In the meantime, I'd suggest one of the following:
1) Actual magic has a manifestation, similar to that attributed to psionic powers. Visual, audible, olfactory, mental, tactile, or something else that lets people know "magic is afoot here." This can be generalized (people know something is happening somewhere) or specific (people know that the tall elderly lady is giving them a chill). OR,
2) The Spellcraft skill literally incorporates a quasi-mystical magic-sensing ability. You can use it to identify casters of any form equally well, and with a high enough skill check you can Detect Magic with it.

Under either of these variants, Silent Still spells could still be noticed.

If someone wants to argue the validity of a rule in the Rules Forum then they need to use the RAW, not some stuff about squirrel chatter.

Not sure I follow you. The points about squirrel chatter illustrate why a literalist interpretation of the rules does not make sense in this situation and why an alternative interpretation is more logical. That is, the rules encounter certain difficulties when applied to game situations. Is that not an appropriate topic of discussion for the Rules forum? The game balance implications of the more liberal interpretation in turn necessitate a house rule. I'm not convinced that this discussion can be entirely classified in one forum or the other.

 

[Saeviomagy]

This isn't a logical progression. There's nothing about your premise that requires your conclusion. I could as easily say Males and Females are different, so Female spelling must be different. There's no logic in that.

Ok, the logic comes from "squirrels cannot make the same noises as men, therefore they must make different noises when spellcasting". The gestures could be wholly identical, but then we just use a different example creature. It is logical, but it requires an additional step.

Now as a concept it may be sensible. It makes sense that if two things are different, they may not do something the same way. But that assumes that squirrels cast spells. They don't. What you've got is a humanoid druid attempting to accomplish humanoid spellcasting, using an animal body. Natural Spell represents the knowledge required to substitute the necessary vocal and somatic components with similar animal sounds/gestures, and get the spell to work. It doesn't represent that the druid has learned "animal spellcasting," because there's no such thing.

Ok, then let's do it with something like an aboleth. It's a fish creature with 4 tentacles, and there's an example of one which has levels in wizard.

I know you aren't arguing for Natural Spell to be undetectable, Saeviomagy. I just wanted to respond to the "well it is logical" comment, and dovetail that into my second point.

I think it's enough that it can qualify as something logical. I think it's effect is cancelled out by the "regardless, the gestures and words in the alternate form still have the same end effect, therefore there must be some resemblance".

 

[Saeviomagy]

1) Actual magic has a manifestation, similar to that attributed to psionic powers. Visual, audible, olfactory, mental, tactile, or something else that lets people know "magic is afoot here." This can be generalized (people know something is happening somewhere) or specific (people know that the tall elderly lady is giving them a chill). OR,
2) The Spellcraft skill literally incorporates a quasi-mystical magic-sensing ability. You can use it to identify casters of any form equally well, and with a high enough skill check you can Detect Magic with it.

Personally I'd go for a combination of the two.

Spellcraft almost already has the 'detect magic' component you describe - it can allow a spellcaster to identify the handiwork of a spell.

Additionally allowing SOME CHANCE for a spellcaster to attempt spellcraft against a spell as it is cast, regardless of the current surroundings is a good idea - it promotes counterspelling which currently verges on the useless.

My personal ruling would be that if you've got line of effect to a spellcaster, you get a spellcraft roll. For each component of the normal spell that is missing, you get a penalty (probably -5). If you fail by more than 5, you do not know that a spell is being cast, merely that someone is making funny gestures. If you fail by less than 5, you know a spell is being cast. If you succeed, you know which spell.

I would probably only count verbal and somatic components for the above, because eschew material components is clearly not balanced if it gives everyone a +5 DC on spellcraft checks to recognise your spell.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Ok, the logic comes from "squirrels cannot make the same noises as men, therefore they must make different noises when spellcasting".

Okay, this is a line of logic I can buy. But this doesn't support the idea that an animal spellcasting sounds like an ordinary animal does. I still assert that it'd sound like an animal trying to make the sounds of humanoid spellcasting to the best of its ability.

Ok, then let's do it with something like an aboleth. It's a fish creature with 4 tentacles, and there's an example of one which has levels in wizard.

How do wizards and aboleths have anything to do with Natural Spell? Natural Spell allows spellcasting while wildshaped, by a druid. The fact that an aboleth can take levels in wizard is entirely beside the point. Are you asserting that because an aboleth can take levels in wizard, and thus spellcast, that there must be an "aboleth spellcasting"? Even if this were true (and I don't believe it is, more below,) it wouldn't have any bearing on a druid trying to spellcast while wildshaped into a squirrel, because regardless of what aboleths do or don't do, squirrels don't spellcast.

Regarding the aboleth, my flavor text for how the rules work is that spellcasting is a universal craft. The verbal components are more about cadence than language. The somatic components are the tracing of mystical symbols. So an aboleth spellcaster would use different words to arrive at the same cadences of spellcasting, and different appendages to trace the same runes. The same is true of a druid wildshaped into a squirrel. He'll be chirping in such a way that he achieves the proper cadences, and gesturing with his little paw to trace out the proper runes.

Now a fighter might not know a Fireball from a Lightning Bolt, but if he sees a squirrel waving its paw around drawing runes in the air, and chirping in an odd, stilted fashion, he's going to know something's going on.

Admittedly, this is my own visualization, and hardly RAW. But then, I believe the RAW is already quite clear on what Natural Spell does and doesn't do.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Okay, this is a line of logic I can buy. But this doesn't support the idea that an animal spellcasting sounds like an ordinary animal does. I still assert that it'd sound like an animal trying to make the sounds of humanoid spellcasting to the best of its ability.How do wizards and aboleths have anything to do with Natural Spell?

Because they're a non-humanoid creature casting spells.

Natural Spell allows spellcasting while wildshaped, by a druid. The fact that an aboleth can take levels in wizard is entirely beside the point. Are you asserting that because an aboleth can take levels in wizard, and thus spellcast, that there must be an "aboleth spellcasting"? Even if this were true (and I don't believe it is, more below,) it wouldn't have any bearing on a druid trying to spellcast while wildshaped into a squirrel, because regardless of what aboleths do or don't do, squirrels don't spellcast.

Unless they're awakened, for instance. Although then they get a language I guess.

Regarding the aboleth, my flavor text for how the rules work is that spellcasting is a universal craft. The verbal components are more about cadence than language. The somatic components are the tracing of mystical symbols. So an aboleth spellcaster would use different words to arrive at the same cadences of spellcasting, and different appendages to trace the same runes. The same is true of a druid wildshaped into a squirrel. He'll be chirping in such a way that he achieves the proper cadences, and gesturing with his little paw to trace out the proper runes.

See, it IS relevant.

Regardless of form, whether aboleth, polymorphed wizard, wildshaped druid or awakened animal, all have a different shape and other physical attributes to a human or humanoid spellcaster.

However, all of them cast the same spells, with no difference as to the effects. Therefore there is some universal commonality to the gestures and sounds made while spellcasting, exactly as you say.

That's the logical part of the argument. Spellcasting transcends form and voicebox.

 

[Kalendraf]

I've yet to find a hard and fast rule from the PHB/DMG/SRD that specifically states that everyone recognizes spells as they are cast.

Spellcraft includes the ability to identify a specific spell as it is being cast, which would seem imply that people trained with spellcraft have an ability to recognize spellcasting.

If anyone is aware of a concrete rule for those unschooled in spellcraft (which is essentially 99% of my world's populace), please post it as it would go a very long ways toward helping to clear this up.

Otherwise, another way to handle this would be to use a concept I'd like to call "sparkly magic". If casting spells causes some kind of detectable signs like eldritch sparkles that twinkle around the caster as he is casting a spell, then certainly everyone would be able to recognize magic as it is being cast. IMHO, that would be a house rule of how you handle magic in your campaign, but it would certainly explain how everyone is able to detect spellcasting. In fact, the more I think about it, I really think this should be some type of optional rule in the DMG. Either your magic is sparkly or it isn't and the ramifications include what we're discussing in this thread.

For the record, my campaigns are non-sparkly, but I would certainly consider trying a sparkly variant in the future.

Added:
Doh! I just re-read a few earlier posts and realized that Brother MacLaren recently proposed something similar with pixie dust. Well, that's 2 votes for the concept at least.